Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 3rd, 2012
Evidence of meeting #31 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was security.
A recording is available from Parliament.
On the agenda
MPs speaking
Also speaking
- Toni Moffa Deputy Chief, IT Security, Communications Security Establishment Canada
- Robert Gordon Special Advisor, Cyber Security, Canadian Cyber Incident Response Centre, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
- Commissioner James Malizia Assistant Commissioner Protective Policing, Protective Policing Branch, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
- Tony Pickett Officer In Charge, Technological Crime Branch, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Let me repeat it.
Who is best able to identify who put that YouTube video up on the Internet?
12:05 p.m.
Special Advisor, Cyber Security, Canadian Cyber Incident Response Centre, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I don't know the answer to that question, but perhaps Mr. Pickett would.
12:05 p.m.
Superintendent Tony Pickett Officer In Charge, Technological Crime Branch, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I could probably speak to that question. There are groups of specialists in different government departments that collaborate quite often on these types of cases.
The complexity of the cases usually indicates that there's not one sole pocket, so we often share resources within the government departments and/or sometimes with other international agencies, law enforcement agencies, or intelligence agencies.
So I guess the expertise doesn't lie necessarily in one particular spot. We'd have to look at it on a case-by-case basis and reach out to other government departments and/or other federal agencies to help us with these kinds of cases.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
12:05 p.m.
Supt Tony Pickett
Absolutely.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
We know that there have been charges laid in England and in the United States against people claiming to be part of Anonymous. Would that type of reaching out include reaching out to actual cases in other countries, and asking to share information with those other countries?
12:05 p.m.
A/Commr James Malizia
Although I can't comment on investigations that have been conducted in other countries, we regularly exchange and share with various other agencies from around the world, whether they be best practices or collaborations on investigations.
April 3rd, 2012 / 12:10 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
All right.
Assistant Commissioner, with regard to the actual charges, are you able to answer any questions with regard to the types charges? And, I'm sorry, this came up in the last meeting around the difficulty with double-jeopardy—us making recommendations, for lack of a better term, on punitive action through the House of Commons versus criminal charges through the criminal justice system. That's your side of the coin.
Has any analysis been made of the types of charges that could be laid in these circumstances?
12:10 p.m.
A/Commr James Malizia
Well, there are different charges, as you know, that are available to us through the Criminal Code. It could range from unauthorized use of a computer, under section 342; the use of, possession of, or trafficking of computer passwords; mischief to data; extortion; intimidation; and uttering threats. So there are different ones available to us through the Criminal Code.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
We're trying to get some sense of timelines here, but I know you're not going to be able to answer that, so I won't ask the question.
In terms of the ongoing investigation, does it include physical threats? Or is it simply YouTube?
12:10 p.m.
A/Commr James Malizia
I'm not in a position to provide you with any information at all.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
NDP
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
NDP